The Pope on Evolution, creationism

[Spider-Bite]

Ignoring the fact that I did go with you point for point in your "Martial Arts will save Humanity, hooray Socialism!" thread, leading you to eventually abandon it...

well sometimes we agree and sometimes we disagree

Life in itself is astronomically improbable.

Actually it's highly propable. It even exists in volcanoes and frozen ice. Life finds a way. If the conditions are right for life to evolve it will.

If you are willing to admit that a higher power may exist, it is only a little jump in logic to believe that it may play some impact on our lives.

It's just highly impropable that it had anything to do with our existence. it's fully possible.

If you are willing to admit a God does exist, then that mixed with the improbability of life in the universe means it is not a far stretch to believe that some sort of higher power played at least some role in the formation of life on this planet.

There are probably trillions of intelligent civilizations in this universe coming into existence, because of the proven fact that if the conditions for life to evolve are present, life will evolve.

Not really. In fact I think it is far easier in today's cynical age to be an atheist than a Christian. Teen's by nature question there parents constantly, and at times unfairly, and also strive for absolute freedom - something that religion beliefs can interfere with.

Younger generations do have a higher percentage of atheists than Christains, however the fear of being rejected by one's family is a strong fear. And the threat of hell does scare people. And once you've believed something for a long time, it's hard to accept the fact that you may have been wrong.

Since we can agree that there is not enough evidence to definitively prove or disprove the existence of God - then if one were to truly observe all the evidence objectively, than one would be agnostic.

The transitional definition from atheist to agnostic is kind of blurred. Many people who believe it's possible God exists, but believe he probably doesn't call themselves atheist and many call themselves agnostic.

An atheist, such as yourself, who talks down to, condescends and mocks Christians - now THAT is an example of atheists being narrow minded.

It's not narrow minded to examine the possiblities and come to a conclusion. Narrow minded means unable to think outside the box, and I have proven I am a very outside the box thinker. I thought for a long time that scientists were wrong about the fact that neanderthauls died out. I believed and still believe cro magnon mated with them, and their DNA was absorbed into the human gene pool. A year after I came to that conclusion human-Neanderthaul hybrids started being unburied.
I do not look down on Christains. My example of mocking them in this thread with the scott peterson thing, was to help them see how speculative it is to use God to fill in the gaps whenever an answer eludes scientists.

See, now that is being condescending and mocking the beliefs of billions of people. That is an example of you being a narrow-minded prick.

My vision for the future includes many people who are deeply religous attending some type of religous service on a regular basis. I don't even desire complete atheism for the entire human race. I believe their belief is silly, however for many people it improves the quality of their life.

Many people believe that a magical being with super powers created the universe out of nothing. Yes I believe that is silly. That does not make me narrow minded or condascending. Seriously. You can't be upset that I dont' believe in witches, ghosts, curses or zombies.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Then their was a reasonable amount of evidence to convict him. Eitherway it doesn't change my point.

what point? I pointed out that just because you dont' know how something happened, that doesnt' prove God exists. You had no point with that. I did.

 

[Victarion]

If you don't look down on us, then why do you mock us? The "trillions of intelligent civilizations" pretty much means aliens to average joe. So why not go the whole nine yards and say witches and ghosts exist? Not that they are entirely savory beings, but I believe both exist.

 

[Warhammer]

I'm a Christian (No stupid denomination, though).
I believe that The Big Bang was probably God's way of creating the universe, with taking 7 days to fully create what we see today. I don't believe that the Big Bang just happened out of nowhere, but I do believe that God was probably behind it. Who are we to say that it did/did not happen?

 

[Spider-Bite]

Spider-Bite...I see you are gunning for the separation of church and state statute...however by removing religion from school, you are, in a way, pressing your beliefs of atheism on the children who are "too young to understand" through the separation of church and state statute.

We have a responsiblity to teach our children science, including the scientific explanation as to the origin of mankind. It's an important theory.

You cannot deny that.

I will admit it is crucial that the number of people who don't believe in God increases, and the number of people who do believe in God decreases. It is absolutely crucial to avoiding human extinction.

EDIT: It would seem that you use science as a scapegoat, much as we do our faith. Perhaps you should hook up with Tom Cruise, no?

How do I use it as a scapegoat? I'd like an answer to that question. Science is the investigative process to answer questions and find explanations for the temporarily unexplained. I'm not a scientologist. It is possible that God exists, and anything not from earth is technically alien, but there is absolutely no evidence or reason to assume we were created by any intelligent designer. Tom Cruise and other scientologists, and Christains, and muslims are all pulling an explanation out of thin air, and just assuming it's true for no reason.

 

[Victarion]

I'm a Christian (No stupid denomination, though).
I believe that The Big Bang was probably God's way of creating the universe, with taking 7 days to fully create what we see today. I don't believe that the Big Bang just happened out of nowhere, but I do believe that God was probably behind it. Who are we to say that it did/did not happen?

Agreed. My biology teacher actually told us that, too.

 

[Sloth7d]

what point? I pointed out that just because you dont' know how something happened, that doesnt' prove God exists. You had no point with that. I did.

And my point was its not the same thing. If you can't prove 100% that either happened then it all falls on faith. Unlike in this case wich it was provable.

 

[Victarion]

We have a responsiblity to teach our children science, including the scientific explanation as to the origin of mankind. It's an important theory.



I will admit it is crucial that the number of people who don't believe in God increases, and the number of people who do believe in God decreases. It is absolutely crucial to avoiding human extinction.


How do I use it as a scapegoat? I'd like an answer to that question. Science is the investigative process to answer questions and find explanations for the temporarily unexplained. I'm not a scientologist. It is possible that God exists, and anything not from earth is technically alien, but there is absolutely no evidence or reason to assume we were created by any intelligent designer. Tom Cruise and other scientologists, and Christains, and muslims are all pulling an explanation out of thin air, and just assuming it's true for no reason.

To the two points in bold italics:

1. Yes, we do need to teach our children the various sciences and what not, because they'll be the doctors taking care of us when we're old and decrepit. But its only a class in school, and you can pick and take what you will with it, then discard whatever is least useful to yourself.

2. With your posts, it appears that science is an answer to everything. That is what I mean by scapegoat.

 

[Spider-Bite]

If you don't look down on us, then why do you mock us?

I mocked you one time, and it wasn't for the sake of making fun of you. In order for you to see the illgocialness of using God to fill in the gaps, I had to use a subject unrelated to God. We all agree Scott Peterson was guilty, even though we don't know how he killed her. I merely pointed out that just because you don't know how something happened, that doesn't mean God had to have done it. There seriously was no offense intended. Just a way that I thought you would be able to get my point.

The "trillions of intelligent civilizations" pretty much means aliens to average joe.

good, because that's what I meant.

So why not go the whole nine yards and say witches and ghosts exist?

the existence of one automtically confirms the existence of another?

Not that they are entirely savory beings, but I believe both exist.

There are people who call themselves withces, and they practice witchcraft, but they fall up a little short when it comes to successfully casting spells.
Ghosts? I have proven that self awareness lies in the brain. Without that processor to process data and emotions, there is no way to experience them, unless scientists learn how to transfer your consciousness into a computer.

 

[Victarion]

I mocked you one time, and it wasn't for the sake of making fun of you. In order for you to see the illgocialness of using God to fill in the gaps, I had to use a subject unrelated to God. We all agree Scott Peterson was guilty, even though we don't know how he killed her. I merely pointed out that just because you don't know how something happened, that doesn't mean God had to have done it. There seriously was no offense intended. Just a way that I thought you would be able to get my point.
good, because that's what I meant.

the existence of one automtically confirms the existence of another?


There are people who call themselves withces, and they practice witchcraft, but they fall up a little short when it comes to successfully casting spells.
Ghosts? I have proven that self awareness lies in the brain. Without that processor to process data and emotions, there is no way to experience them, unless scientists learn how to transfer your consciousness into a computer.

Ah, okay then. All is forgiven.

That's what I call a beneficial scientific advancement

Think about how awesome that would be. You could see your worst fears. How long do you suppose it would take for such a technological advancement?

 

[Spider-Bite]

To the two points in bold italics:

1. Yes, we do need to teach our children the various sciences and what not, because they'll be the doctors taking care of us when we're old and decrepit. But its only a class in school, and you can pick and take what you will with it, then discard whatever is least useful to yourself.

2. With your posts, it appears that science is an answer to everything. That is what I mean by scapegoat.

Science really means investigate. That's really what Science is. If you are looking for an answer to something, than the best thing to do is look for the answer. So there are really two answers to everything.

1. Scientifically discovering the answer
2. Doing what's right based on the available information

Look at the economy. Economists are scientists who study the economy. That kind of science as well as technology can help the economy.
Look at society. We can use the advice of sociologists, scientists who study the development of society.

I believe in looking at everything scientifically.

I understand faith. I believe World Peace is possible, although I guestimate there is a 65% chance that it wont happen. Many think it's impossible. I think world peace is possible, and I'm not really sure whether or not that belief is based on faith or not.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Ah, okay then. All is forgiven.

That's what I call a beneficial scientific advancement

Think about how awesome that would be. You could see your worst fears. How long do you suppose it would take for such a technological advancement?

I think it could happen in our lifetime based on rescent integrations of brain tissue and computer chips. It actually scares the hell out of me. It could be really fun, but that kind of technology could also create massive problems.

But if they did do that, you could probably tell people what kind of after life you wanted. You could be spider-man, or you could be a man on a deserted island surrounded by beautiful naked women, with perfect weather at all times. They could even hook it all up like the internet, so you could visit loved ones.

I'm not even a hundred percent sure if I want this to happen though. Once that technology exists we will have no way of knowing what's real and what's not. Think of the matrix.

 

[Victarion]

I will tell you this: I have no faith in World Peace. Too many hostilities at the moment, what with Iraq and the war on terror.

 

[Spider-Bite]

I will tell you this: I have no faith in World Peace. Too many hostilities at the moment, what with Iraq and the war on terror.

yes but those conflicts will not last forever. the united states was much like the middle east in it's infancy, and were now united.

 

[Victarion]

True. But we'll probably be pushing up daisies, or some undead fiend's lunch by the time World Peace happens.

And if the Middle East follows our example, then they'll start another war with us.

 

[Spider-Bite]

that technological possiblity I mentioned? I was just thinking of how people would all probably grow up into ass holes because they wont care about anything or anybody. They wont have any incentive to make this world good or great, because this amazing simulation is just waiting around the corner.

And religous people would be very angry about this because it would be an intrusion on their beliefs.

And I really don't think people should live forever. I actually hope this doesn't come into existence, but were literally on the frontier of being able to read people's minds or create a real life Matrix. And it really scares the hell out of me.

 

[Victarion]

I consider myself religious, and would think such technology could be good for some kicks...but yeah if you think about it, its quite frightening. All you need is a forgotten principle "self control"...that means knowing when to quit your machine fantasy.

A little OT, but have you ever had the opportunity to watch a cadaver dissection?

 

[Spider-Bite]

I consider myself religious, and would think such technology could be good for some kicks...but yeah if you think about it, its quite frightening. All you need is a forgotten principle "self control"...that means knowing when to quit your machine fantasy.

A little OT, but have you ever had the opportunity to watch a cadaver dissection?

I don't think so. It's possible that I have on the discovery health channel, but I"m not sure.

 

[Calvin]

And my point was its not the same thing. If you can't prove 100% that either happened then it all falls on faith.

That's a pretty dumb statement. So if you have enough evidence to prove something to be at least 99% true, it still falls "ALL" on faith? That's the dumbest thing I've read in a while. Apparently we should all stop studying or analyzing anything at all, since it will "all" just boil down to faith. Bravo. What a great world that would be, where something that's about 99% backed up by evidence is held in no more regard than something that's .0001% backed up by evidence.

 

[StorminNorman]

Actually it's highly propable. It even exists in volcanoes and frozen ice. Life finds a way. If the conditions are right for life to evolve it will.

However the probability of those conditions existing on a planet is very, very improbable. Earth is the only known planet that has any significant amount of life.

There are probably trillions of intelligent civilizations in this universe coming into existence, because of the proven fact that if the conditions for life to evolve are present, life will evolve.

And yet we have never received as much as a stray transmission from a single civilization. Why I have no doubt that there are other planets supporting intelligent life, the presence of such on a planet is incredibility improbable. If there is a higher power, than there is no reason to believe that he did not play some sort of role in the formation of life.

Younger generations do have a higher percentage of atheists than Christains, however the fear of being rejected by one's family is a strong fear. And the threat of hell does scare people. And once you've believed something for a long time, it's hard to accept the fact that you may have been wrong.

I think you overestimate that fear though. Teen's constantly rebel from their parents, from their siblings, etc. Its a normal adolescent tendency. No matter your religion.

The transitional definition from atheist to agnostic is kind of blurred. Many people who believe it's possible God exists, but believe he probably doesn't call themselves atheist and many call themselves agnostic.

Such people would be agnostic. Atheists refuse to acknowledge possibility of there being a God.

It's not narrow minded to examine the possiblities and come to a conclusion. Narrow minded means unable to think outside the box, and I have proven I am a very outside the box thinker. I thought for a long time that scientists were wrong about the fact that neanderthauls died out. I believed and still believe cro magnon mated with them, and their DNA was absorbed into the human gene pool. A year after I came to that conclusion human-Neanderthaul hybrids started being unburied.
I do not look down on Christains. My example of mocking them in this thread with the scott peterson thing, was to help them see how speculative it is to use God to fill in the gaps whenever an answer eludes scientists.

Your condescending tone you take with Christians during religious debates makes you come across as being religiously narrow minded. Simply because you may think "outside the box" in other subjects does not dispute this either. In this thread alone you have compared God to Santa, painted Christians as unenlightened bigots and has gone so far as to simply state "God does not exist". Sorry, but that is being narrow minded.

My vision for the future includes many people who are deeply religous attending some type of religous service on a regular basis. I don't even desire complete atheism for the entire human race. I believe their belief is silly, however for many people it improves the quality of their life.

Ok, so you see religious as a weakness among humanity - but of course I wouldn't dare label that as a "narrow minded" point of view.

Many people believe that a magical being with super powers created the universe out of nothing. Yes I believe that is silly. That does not make me narrow minded or condascending. Seriously. You can't be upset that I dont' believe in witches, ghosts, curses or zombies.

The fact that you paint God as a "magical being with super powers" betrays any attempt you try to make to paint yourself as an enlightened observer.

 

[Spider-Bite]

However the probability of those conditions existing on a planet is very, very improbable. Earth is the only known planet that has any significant amount of life.

you'll have to forgive NASA for the year being 2007 and not 2307. I'm sure they are very sorry for not being able to build an interstellar ship so they can explore the galaxy. We've only got three planets to look at in the life belt distance from the sun, and it's kind of difficult to look for signs of ancient life on mars, since we've never been there. But the mars mission did pass, and we will have astranauts on mars digging and searching for life. And we do know that the conditions on mars were right at one time.

And yet we have never received as much as a stray transmission from a single civilization. Why I have no doubt that there are other planets supporting intelligent life, the presence of such on a planet is incredibility improbable. If there is a higher power, than there is no reason to believe that he did not play some sort of role in the formation of life.

It's just highly unlikely. What are the odds that a being was there to create it? Your pointing to SETI"s lack of a received transmission, would be like me pointing to the fact that I've never seen God.

I think you overestimate that fear though. Teen's constantly rebel from their parents, from their siblings, etc. Its a normal adolescent tendency. No matter your religion.

Fear of getting grounded isn't the same as fear of being burned for an eternity.

Such people would be agnostic. Atheists refuse to acknowledge possibility of there being a God.

I'm an atheist. I believe it's possible God exists, I just believe it's extremely unlikely.

Your condescending tone you take with Christians during religious debates makes you come across as being religiously narrow minded. Simply because you may think "outside the box" in other subjects does not dispute this either. In this thread alone you have compared God to Santa,

Tell me the difference between a child believing in Santa and an adult believing in God. It even says in the bible, you need the faith of a child in order to believe. And it's true. They both require the same amount of faith. Neither have evidence. They are both far fetched. They are both superstitions.

painted Christians as unenlightened bigots

some of them. not all of them. The majority of LIberals in this country are Christain. Matin Luther King was a Christain. It usually comes down to whether or not a person thinks they know the will of God.

and has gone so far as to simply state "God does not exist". Sorry, but that is being narrow minded.

Your statement actually sounds narrow minded.

To say God exists, is not narrow minded, but a person who looks at things scientifically, to help them come to a conclusion is narrow minded? How is not believing in God narrow minded? There is nothing narrow minded about it. This is what I think. I believe God does not exist, and untill I see some strong evidence that is what I will believe. It's called taking the facts into consideration and forming a belief based on the available information. It's the opposite of narrow minded.

Ok, so you see religious as a weakness among humanity - but of course I wouldn't dare label that as a "narrow minded" point of view

.

Yes I do see it that way. Religion puts people like Bush and Osama Bin Laden in power. God is the most dangerous thing ever invented by mankind. Look at the middle east. For almost 2000 years they have been fighting over religous prophecies. And you claim religion is not a weakness among society? How can you not acknowledge the truth when it's right in front of you?

Is that not narrow minded? is the assumption that "who are you to argue with God?" or "it's true because the bible says it is" narrow minded? allowing a book to think for you instead of yourself?

The fact that you paint God as a "magical being with super powers" betrays any attempt you try to make to paint yourself as an enlightened observer.

didn't the bible paint him that way first? Snapping his fingers, and poof, a universe suddenly exists? Then performing all kinds of miraculous feats with the blink of an eye. That's not a magical being with super powers?

What do you consider a magical being with super powers? I'd really like that answered. What does it take for a being to be considered magical and super powered?

If you don't think God has super powers I'd hate to see what you say about spider-man, superman, etc.

 

[gkokujin]

*double*

 

[gkokujin]

i believe in God.

I truly could care less about the Pope. He's nothing but another person in the same boat as me...just with alot of money.

Bill Gates > Pope

Satan < Bill Gates

Tom Cruise and other scientologists, and Christains, and muslims are all pulling an explanation out of thin air, and just assuming it's true for no reason.

thats a pretty damned big lumpsum there buddy.

be careful treading those waters.

oh, and this is where FAITH comes in.
Just like you have faith that "science" is true from what you read. Specific things you wont test or question because you assume it is true because another scientist said so with others to confirm.

meh but what do I know.

I'm just a nappy headed hoe.

 

[Calvin]

thats a pretty damned big lumpsum there buddy.

be careful treading those waters.

oh, and this is where FAITH comes in.
Just like you have faith that "science" is true from what you read. Specific things you wont test or question because you assume it is true because another scientist said so with others to confirm.

meh but what do I know.

I'm just a nappy headed hoe.

The difference being, if you wanted to, you could go out and test the scientific stuff for yourself.

 

[Spider-Bite]

oh, and this is where FAITH comes in.
Just like you have faith that "science" is true from what you read. Specific things you wont test or question because you assume it is true because another scientist said so with others to confirm.

.

that's the opposite of science. I have never just assumed anything is true, except for when I was younger and I just assumed God was real, becuase that's what I was told.

Leter in life after much reading, researching, analyzing and thinking I realized that the Bible was not true, and that the super natural does not occur.

and I do not just assume scientists are correct, just because they are scientists. I came to my own conclusion that neanderthauls did not die off, but mated with cro-magnon, thus they became absorbed into the human genome, and even spawned the evolution of the different races.

When I first came to that belief, I wasn't extremely confident, but then human neanderthaul hybrids started turning up, adding credibility to my belief.